I'm surprised to see so many 160mm pikes. Is the A-C measurement on the pike not longer than the float 34 for both the 150 and 160 versions? What sort of HA are you ending up with on the 160mm pike setups?

I'm surprised to see so many 160mm pikes. Is the A-C measurement on the pike not longer than the float 34 for both the 150 and 160 versions? What sort of HA are you ending up with on the 160mm pike setups?

The most accurate numbers I've come up with is a 160 Pike's A2C is 7mm taller than a Fox 34's 150.

MikerJ is correct, the Fox 34 150 275 is 544 A2C while the Pike 160 is 552 A2C. Travel for travel the Pike is 2 mm shorter A2C than Fox. Should make a difference of about 1/3 degree in the HA. Not that significant, but noticeable to some.

Those are the listed A2C lengths, they all can vary up to +/-5mm. If you run the the same sag % (25-30%) then the sagged A2C difference is only about 5mm total. Maybe some people are more sensitive to geo changes than me, but I can't feel a 1/4 degree HA change when I ride. You can get a bigger HA change by putting a beefier tire upfront on your bike.

Those are the listed A2C lengths, they all can vary up to +/-5mm. If you run the the same sag % (25-30%) then the sagged A2C difference is only about 5mm total. Maybe some people are more sensitive to geo changes than me, but I can't feel a 1/4 degree HA change when I ride. You can get a bigger HA change by putting a beefier tire upfront on your bike.

Yep. With that possibility of a +/- 5mm on the A2C, and if the fork went to the plus side on top of a 160mm Pike that additional +5 mm on the A2C could throw things off.

On a bike that is plenty slack I would not go the 160mm. I like a lower BB and every time I've tried a longer-than-spec'd fork on a frame I could feel the difference and did not like the handling.

10mm of travel on top of 150mm probably won't make that much difference to justify the gamble for me.

Gottcha! love bike tech,but when debating over a few millimeters here a few degrees there when most riders will never ever feel the difference and even pros like Neko Mulally who I have the pleasure of riding with and a friend chuckles at these minor differences riders debate over in setup and geometry..." just ride your bike " is a quote he to is fond of too.

I've got 85 miles and over 13k of vertical on the bike in the first five rides.
All familiar trails with a great mix of flow, chunk, XC and steeps. I was riding a Carbine 275 for eight months before (Superfly 100 and Niner Rip9 before that).

This bike is sublime. It does everything better than the Intense. Like other reviews have said, the climbing is very surprising and capable. Gobs of traction and super efficient, even when standing. I ride flats and can make climbs on this the Intense couldn't do. When it gets sandy, Mach 6 still grips (with same tire in the rear)

Cornering and downhill is where this bike simply flies. My brain has a hard time keeping up with the speed it's so solid and seems to "take off" down the hill. I was 5 seconds quicker on a 2min descent on my first ride and not even pushing the bike The Fox shock is awesome. I was hesitant about it, but totally happy with it. I leave it in trail and will use "trail adjust" for climbs and descents.

In the steeps, you can shift your weight back and let the rear end absorb everything and easily manual and bunny hop over sections. For cornering, the cockpit is just right to move a bit forward to weight the front wheel and carve away. Mind blowing!

Bike does not feel slack at all and rips XC and tight switchbacks. I can't think of anything it dosen't do well, at least for trail riding.

My bike was a X01 build with some pretty crappy components for this type of rig - long stem, skinny rims, skimpy rear tire, hideous saddle. The Fox fork is nowhere close to the Pike. I switched it out for a 150 Pike. Also, 175 cranks seem long for medium bike with a low BB. I will probably switch them for 170mm. Even with changing all of this stuff, it was still better to buy a complete bike than build a frame.

I've got 85 miles and over 13k of vertical on the bike in the first five rides.
All familiar trails with a great mix of flow, chunk, XC and steeps. I was riding a Carbine 275 for eight months before (Superfly 100 and Niner Rip9 before that).

This bike is sublime. It does everything better than the Intense. Like other reviews have said, the climbing is very surprising and capable. Gobs of traction and super efficient, even when standing. I ride flats and can make climbs on this the Intense couldn't do. When it gets sandy, Mach 6 still grips (with same tire in the rear)

Cornering and downhill is where this bike simply flies. My brain has a hard time keeping up with the speed it's so solid and seems to "take off" down the hill. I was 5 seconds quicker on a 2min descent on my first ride and not even pushing the bike The Fox shock is awesome. I was hesitant about it, but totally happy with it. I leave it in trail and will use "trail adjust" for climbs and descents.

In the steeps, you can shift your weight back and let the rear end absorb everything and easily manual and bunny hop over sections. For cornering, the cockpit is just right to move a bit forward to weight the front wheel and carve away. Mind blowing!

Bike does not feel slack at all and rips XC and tight switchbacks. I can't think of anything it dosen't do well, at least for trail riding.

My bike was a X01 build with some pretty crappy components for this type of rig - long stem, skinny rims, skimpy rear tire, hideous saddle. The Fox fork is nowhere close to the Pike. I switched it out for a 150 Pike. Also, 175 cranks seem long for medium bike with a low BB. I will probably switch them for 170mm. Even with changing all of this stuff, it was still better to buy a complete bike than build a frame.

Good info since the main concern of most (me included) is the bike will be too slack for normal trail riding. I am tossed between the M6 and the Bronson. Have you ridden both bikes? I normally ride a Large frame but it seems the Pivots might run larger than most. If am 5-10. How tall are you? I like a 50mm stem and I am concerned the Medium will have too short of a top tube.

Re: Mach 6 Review Thread

Originally Posted by endoguru

Good info since the main concern of most (me included) is the bike will be too slack for normal trail riding. I am tossed between the M6 and the Bronson. Have you ridden both bikes? I normally ride a Large frame but it seems the Pivots might run larger than most. If am 5-10. How tall are you? I like a 50mm stem and I am concerned the Medium will have too short of a top tube.

I found the Mach6 to be a great climber as well, especially considering its travel. It really did not feel like 66 degree HA. It also felt a bit lighter than its actual weight, which I contribute to DW link.

I am 5'9" and the medium fit me just right. BTW, the reach on the M Mach6 is even lower than on SC Solo or Bronson...
I ride a medium SC TRc and a TB, so I am used to short TT.
I have ridden a M Bronson and M and L Solo. I think I am definitely between sizes on SC bikes, the M felt nice on DH, but it was a bit cramped climbing. The solo had a 50 or 60mm stem.
If you decide for a Bronson, a large might be a better fit for you.
With Mach, it gets a bit more complicated, since the TT is longer, but the reach is shorter. But the bike has a slacker ST, which might contribute to a better fit on M.
Well, for me, I would definitely go with a medium on Mach, on Bronson or Solo it depends, but I might be more inclined to get a large.

I decided to measure the head angle on the bike and an angle finder (from Lowe's) and the Clinometer iPhone app both are reading 69 degrees. I tested the clinometer against a level and it's spot on for level and 90 degrees, but shows 49 when level shows 45. I'm running a 150mm Pike. This might explain why it feels so good on the XC trails.

I'm just under 5ft 9in. Mach6 medium feels perfect. My medium Carbine 275 felt a bit cramped with a 50mm stem. The longer top tube really lets you move forward and backward to weight and unweight the front wheel depending on the trail. I wouldn't say the frames run big, they just have a bit more stretched out top tube, but when you run a short stem the reach feels right and the bike is more stable. A lot of trail/am bikes are going this route (Norco, Kona, Giant).

I decided to measure the head angle on the bike and an angle finder (from Lowe's) and the Clinometer iPhone app both are reading 69 degrees. I tested the clinometer against a level and it's spot on for level and 90 degrees, but shows 49 when level shows 45. I'm running a 150mm Pike. This might explain why it feels so good on the XC trails.

It's hard to get an accurate HT angle measurement without the bike in a fixture. Being off by 2-3 deg wouldn't be hard. I can't see Pivot screwing up by 3 degrees from the design to the fabrication of the M6 and a 69 deg HT angle would be obvious as soon as you headed down anything steep.

It's hard to get an accurate HT angle measurement without the bike in a fixture. Being off by 2-3 deg wouldn't be hard. I can't see Pivot screwing up by 3 degrees from the design to the fabrication of the M6 and a 69 deg HT angle would be obvious as soon as you headed down anything steep.

Yeah, the numbers don't seem to be accurate and it sure doesn't feel like a steep HA. How can I get an accurate head angle and seat angle measurement?

Yeah, the numbers don't seem to be accurate and it sure doesn't feel like a steep HA. How can I get an accurate head angle and seat angle measurement?

Accurate so I would trust it?

A dedicated fixture that mounts the frame level and keeps the bike from moving. Not something anyone is going to have laying around and not likely worth building unless you need accurate HT angles on a regular basis.

I found the Mach6 to be a great climber as well, especially considering its travel. It really did not feel like 66 degree HA. It also felt a bit lighter than its actual weight, which I contribute to DW link.

I am 5'9" and the medium fit me just right. BTW, the reach on the M Mach6 is even lower than on SC Solo or Bronson...
I ride a medium SC TRc and a TB, so I am used to short TT.
I have ridden a M Bronson and M and L Solo. I think I am definitely between sizes on SC bikes, the M felt nice on DH, but it was a bit cramped climbing. The solo had a 50 or 60mm stem.
If you decide for a Bronson, a large might be a better fit for you.
With Mach, it gets a bit more complicated, since the TT is longer, but the reach is shorter. But the bike has a slacker ST, which might contribute to a better fit on M.
Well, for me, I would definitely go with a medium on Mach, on Bronson or Solo it depends, but I might be more inclined to get a large.

I ride a SC Blur TRc currently in a large frame. I am right at that point where I am in between sizes on many bikes. The SC bikes fit me fairly well in large frames but as you stated the Pivot TT is a little longer. What length stem are you running on the M6?

Re: Mach 6 Review Thread

Originally Posted by endoguru

I ride a SC Blur TRc currently in a large frame. I am right at that point where I am in between sizes on many bikes. The SC bikes fit me fairly well in large frames but as you stated the Pivot TT is a little longer. What length stem are you running on the M6?

I had only 1 demo ride on the Mach6.. Not sure what size of stem was on it, whatever Pivot specs with the bike, I assume.